Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

But note in verse 13 who is addressed: "Hear YOU now, O House of David; is it a small thing for YOU (house of Israel) to weary men......." then the very next verse, "Therefore the Lord himself will give YOU (house of Israel) a sign:........"

---

As PaulK has done an admirable job of demonstrating, the text clearly states that the child of Is. 7:14 would be living during the time of the Assyrian invasion.In addition to indicating that the two kings (Ephraim/Syria) would be destroyed by Assyria, the prophecy is subsequently expanded to predict that Judea itself would later be devastated (although Jerusalem would not be destroyed). This, as PaulK has pointed out, is what is meant in Is. 7:22 that all the people of Judea (including the child of Is. 7:14) would be reduced to the nomadic herders diet of milk and wild honey. Why? Because all the crops and fields are laid waste as is indicated in Is. 7: 23-24 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines . . . it shall even be for briers and thorns. (24) . . . because all the land shall become briers and thorns.While this certainly supports the idea that the sign was intended for the contemporary generation of Isaiah, the question you must ask yourself is, "Was all the land laid waste and reduced to briers and thorns in the time of Jesus?"As to the "house of David" reference, it was quite common to refer to the ruling monarchy by this designation; much as U.S. citizens refer to the presidency as the "white house".You need only look at Is.7:2 to understand that this is so:Is. 7:2 "And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. . ."Note that this quite clearly indicates that the contemporary house of David (IOW the currently ruling monarchy) was told that Ephraim and Syria had formed an alliance. It would be total nonsense to suggest that this information was intended for some future "house of David".Likewise, the sign given to the "house of David" referred to a few verses later in Is. 7:13 concerns the contemporary ruling monarchy.Not only is this supported by Is.7:2 and the context of the remaining verses in the chapter, but also by Isaiah's very words, i.e. ". . . Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?"To whom was Isaiah speaking? It was the contemporary monarchy of Ahaz that was wearying men and God by kowtowing to Tiglath-Pileser III (the Assyrian king) instead of putting their trust in God. Thus, it was this contemporary house of David that Isaiah was addressing and it was this contemporay house of David that would receive the sign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

I understand that you have a lot in stake for the sake of your philosophy in debunking the prophetic significance of this, PaulK, but spinning what is said and to whom it is said will not dispel it's prophetic profoundness.

---

Most will understand that this type of attempt at misdirection is merely a desperate substitute for reasoned argument and supporting evidence.Namaste'Amodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 09-29-2003]

Hello Dilvias,Let me be the first to welcome you to this forum.Also, thank you for reinforcing the point I had made to buzsaw in a previous post regarding the sign of Is. 7:14 being intended for the contemporary house of David.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dilvias

​

I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way . . .

---

You do bring up a further interesting point here regarding the translation of "v'QaRaT", translated in the KJV as "and she will call (his name . . .)". You are correct that this has been alternately (and perhaps more properly) translated as "you shall call (his name . . .)". Indeed, some translations have "thou shalt call", cf. LXX, Aquinus, Symmacus and Theodotus).However, the grammatical suffix (which is used to justify the "you" translation) actually indicates the 2nd person, masculine , singular. IOW, it has been suggested that since the "child/sign" would necessarily need to be a prominent figure in the life of Ahaz, that it was one of Ahaz's wifes or concubines that Isaiah referred to as "the young woman". Consequently, it would be Ahaz himself (masc. sing.)whom Isaiah addressed as "you".Some even suggest that this "young woman" was Abijah and that the child was in fact Hezekiah, which would (in some ways) also be consistent with the descriptions and succession dates provided in later chapters.I hope you stick around. It would be fun to discuss with you some of the implications involved.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-02-2003]

Hello Eric,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dilyias

​

Are you Buddhist?

---

No, I'm a simple humanist. But, as you have surmised, the term is Sanskrit.Fact is, I just like the sentiment it expresses. I have heard a few interpretations as to its meaning, but the one that I prefer is:Namaste' - "That place in me, bows to that place in you where we are the same."Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello w_fortenberry,I don't have a great deal of time to go into depth tonight, but I would be happy to discuss this with you.As to almah vs. betulah, though I have seen it argued both ways, I think that in the end it becomes irrelevant.The first thing to consider is, what did Isaiah's contemporary audience understand him to say? It would strain credulity beyond all limits to think that Isaiah's audience heard, "A woman is going to have a child while still a virgo intactus!"The only thing that makes any sense is that Isaiah either said that the "young woman" will conceive, or he said that "the virgin" will conceive. Either way is fine since virgins conceive everyday (of course at that point they are no longer virgins).

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry

​

I would like to point out that the Bible only mentions one land not two.

---

This ignores the fact that Syria and Ephraim had formed a confederacy.

quote:

---

w_fortenberry:

​

. . . the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

---

The house of David would never abhor Judea. But they certainly did abhor the Syria/Ephraim coalition right about then.

quote:

---

w_fortenberry

​

I would like to postulate that the prophecy is instead a prediction that the land of Israel would be forsaken of both the king of Israel and the king of Judah.

---

You'd really have to stretch the numbers to make this work. Isaiah 7:16 says; "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good . . (etc.)" Since Tiglath-Pileser III overthrew Syria in 732 b.c., Isaiah's prediction to Ahaz must have taken place some time before this date. Then, since Ahaz was succeeded by Hezekiah in 720 b.c., this would make the child c. 12 yrs. old at a minimum before both Pekah and Ahaz ceased to be king. It seems to me that he should have been able to discern good from bad long before that age.

quote:

---

w_fortenberry

​

This postulation would also necessitate that the prophecy be a reference to a child born many years in the future.

---

This ignores the obvious connection between vss. 15 & 22. The fact that both of these verses are included here and juxtaposed with each other makes the sense crystal clear. After Judea is overrun by Assyria, the land is desolated and the people are reduced to the nomadic diet of butter and wild honey. Isaiah 7:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good."IOW, when the child observes Judea (including himself) reduced to this nomadic diet, (all because Ahaz kow-towed to Tiglath-Pileser III and set up an Assyrian altar in the temple instead of trusting in God), it will serve as a striking lesson to him (as well as everyone else in Judea) that he should choose the good rather than the evil.The context of Isaiah chapter 7 makes it effortlessly clear that the child of vs. 14 would be living at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Judea. The contortions that some people go through in an attempt to make it mean something else should be a clear indication that Matthew's assertion was nothing beyond an allegorical eisegesis.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-11-2003]

Hi PaulK,As I mentioned, I was forced by time to be brief in my post. Thank you for all of the additional (and IMO, correct) points that you brought up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK

​

My understanding is that the people of Judah (during the reign of Ahaz) were able to remain in their cities and living as agriculturalists rather than pastoral nomads . . .

---

Definitely, it was only when Sargon (II) died in 705 b.c. that Hezekiah stopped paying tribute to Assyria which resulted in the devastation of Judah and the subsequent siege of Jerusalem (c. 701 b.c.) by Sennacherib.

quote:

---

PaulK

​

. . . because Ahaz submitted to Assyria (therefore thwarting the prophecy).

---

That is an interesting statement.Isaiah 7:17 "The Lord shall bring upon thee and upon thy people . . ."A quick check of the Hebrew reveals that the "thee" in the above verse is in the masculine singular form and must therefore refer to Ahaz as opposed to the earlier indicated "house of David".Therefore it does seem to indicate (as you say) that Ahaz would (personally) experience the devastation of Judah.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi PaulK,

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK

​

It's even simpler than that. The whole of the prophecy has to fit into the years between the birth of the child, and the child being old enough to "know good from evil". According to 2 Kings 18:13 Sennacharib attacked in the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign.

---

Remember, there are two parts to the prophecy. All that needs to happen before the child is old enough to choose the good, etc. is for Rezin (Syria) and Pekah (Israel) to be removed. The second part, the devastation of Judah, can happen later.

quote:

---

PaulK:

​

The child's birth would have to be in Ahaz' reign - since the fall of Syria was during Ahaz' reign - probably in the first few years (see 2 Kings 15-16 - Pekah's reign overlapped with the first 3 years of Ahaz' putting the attacks within that period, and the fall of Syria appears to be not long after).

---

My reply was in response to w_fortenberry's postulate that the two kings of verse 16 were Ahaz and Pekah. Since (as you mentioned) Ahaz took the throne in the 17th year of Pekah's 20 yr. reign, the prophecy of Isaiah had to have occurred within the first three years of Ahaz's reign. Thus since Ahaz reigned for 16 years, the child would have been at least 12 yrs. old (allowing for normal gestation) before both Pekah and Ahaz were gone. This would make the child too old for Pekah and Ahaz to be the two kings referred to in verse 16 as w_fortenberry suggested.Since both Pekah (Israel) and Rezin (Syria) were both killed within c. 4 yrs. of Ahaz's ascension it is these two kings that match the first part of the prophecy as well as the additional context of the chapter.

quote:

---

PaulK:

​

So the 14th year of Hezekaiah's reign is clearly too late - even if the fall of Syria was at the end of Ahaz' reign and not near the beginning.

---

Certainly, Hezekiah's reign is only applicable to the second part of the prophecy (the devastation of Judah). The fall of Syria occurred in the first part of Ahaz's reign. Tiglath-Pileser III took Damascus (Syria) in 732 b.c. (the 4th year of Ahaz's reign)and Rezin was killed at this time. In the same year, Hoshea killed Pekah (Israel) but was unable to ascend to kingship at this time. Hoshea finally succeeded to the throne of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz's reign and ruled for 9 years. It was then (c. 715) that Israel was dispersed.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello again PaulK,

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK

​

You're missing the significance of the child eating curds and honey in verse 15. In verse 22 it is stated that everyone left in Judah will eat curds and honey, because of the return to a pastoral nomadic life.

​

The intent is clear - the whole of the prophecy will be fulfilled by that time.

---

No, that misunderstanding results from reading poor translations.Let's look at verse 16 first.Verse 16 clearly states, (in the original Hebrew) that Rezin and Pekah will be removed before the child is old enough to know (Hebrew; "yada"),or discern, good from evil. I know you agree with this so far.In verse 15, the Hebrew term ("yada") is preceded by the attached preposition "Lamed". This attached "Lamed" has a wide variety of usages dependent upon grammatical construction and, sometimes, context.In verse 15 it is used in the infinitive and expresses the idea of concurrence as opposed to a "moving toward".Thus, both Brown, Driver, Briggs and Koehler, Baumgartner translate vs. 15 as "Butter and honey shall he eat when (or, 'at a time when') he (is old enough) to know (or discern) the evil from the good"; as opposed to the KJV's less correct "Butter and honey shall he eat that he may know . . ." ["The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament", Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner; study ed. vol. 1; Brill pub., Boston, 2001] and ["The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon", Francis Brown, D.D.,D.Litt., S.R. Driver.,Litt.D. and Charles A. Briggs, D.D.,D.Litt., Hendrickson Pub., Peabody Massachusetts, 4th printing, 1999]Also, based on this scholarship:AV has, "Butter and curds and wild honey shall he eat when he knows enough to refuse the evil and choose the good."NASB has, "He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse the evil and choose the good."NIV has, "He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right."The proper translation makes everything clear. Rezin and Pekah are removed before the child reaches the age of discernment. Later, (at a time when the child is old enough to discern between right and wrong) he will (as prophesied) be subsisting on a nomadic diet in devastated Judah.Since Sennacherib succeeded to the Assyrian throne in 705 b.c., this would make the child a little more than 20 yrs. old when Judah is ravaged. Just as the (ante-dated) "prediction" would have it.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Paul,

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK

​

While a literalist could insist that it only means that at SOME point in the child's life the devastation would arrive that would miss the point of a sign. The sign explicitly links the child having reached the age of discernment to the devastation. If it meant at some point in his life after that then why not state that it would happen during the child's lifetime ?

---

I'm not disagreeing with you. I've been over and over these verses and I still learn something new every time I look at them again. Sometimes (especially when reading the KJV) I even forget to apply important linguistic directives that I've already learned.The "throw away your KJV" heading was not aimed at you personally. Being pressed for time earlier in this thread, I was using my KJV and found myself being led back into old errors. Of course, I don't really advocate "throwing away" the KJV, but I do think it should probably come with a big, red "CAUTION" sticker on the cover.The point of my post was simply to demonstrate that while vs. 16 definitely indicates that Rezin and Pekah will be gone before the child reaches an age of discernment, vs. 15 (connected with the second or Judah part of the prediction) allows virtually unlimited latitude.Still, the fact that the personal pronoun (you, thee) in verse 17 is in the masculine, singular form, evidently indicates that it is Ahaz himself who is being spoken to here and provides support for your position.Additionally, the phrase in verse 20, ". . . the Lord shall shave with a razor that is hired ", could be taken to imply that it is not the later (and "unhired") Sennacherib that is being predicted to devastate Judah but Tiglath-Pileser himself, which also supports your position.The implication, of course, would be that Isaiah's prediction missed the target by a wide margin. Since Ahaz (and, initially, Hezekiah) continued to pay tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III, Judah remained unmolested until Hezekiah refused to pay tribute to Sennacherib in 705 b.c.To say, however, that Ahaz "thwarted" the prophecy by continuing to pay tribute (and, in general, bow and scrape to Tiglath), is a curious explanation. It was, after all, precisely these actions by Ahaz that provoked God to begin with.I appreciate your insight and the interesting discussion.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Paul,

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK

​

The Assyrians did not attack Judah within the time limit and therefore the prophecy failed.

---

Perhaps, but it is far from certain that this must be so based on the text.

quote:

---

PaulK:

​

If Ahaz had tried to remain independant it is likely - or at least more likely that the prophecy would have been fulfilled

---

Certainly, I agree with the "reality" of what you are saying here. If Ahaz had declared Judah's independence, Tiglath would not have stopped at the Syria/Israel borders but would have continued straight on into Judah.However, I consider it curious because "remaining independent" is exactly what Isaiah wanted Ahaz to do and the prophecy was only given after Ahaz had consistently refused to do so.So it seems odd that continuing to do the thing that caused the prophecy of doom to be given, would somehow thwart that prophecy.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello w_fortenberry,

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry

​

You stated: It would strain credulity beyond all limits to think that Isaiah's audience heard, "A woman is going to have a child while still a virgo intactus!"

​

Could you please explain how this idea would "strain credulity beyond all limits"?

---

Because the sensible reading of the context has the child born before Rezin and Pekah are removed. Therefore, if Isaiah had meant "virgo intactus", we would have yet another virgin birth to deal with.

quote:

---

w_fortenberry

​

The formation of a confederacy does not in any way require the dissolvement of two nations into one.

​

Are you saying that it would be impossible for a nation to be abhorred by its king?

---

Again, this land is directly associated with the phrase "both kings". These two kings are the primary subject and focus (read context) of the chapter and have already been clearly identified in vss. 1-9.

quote:

---

w_fortenberry

​

The Bible does not tell us how long after this loss (of the two kings) the child will gain his discernment. It merely states that the child will know to choose between good and evil sometime after the land has lost both kings. Now, it would be highly irregular for a child to know how to choose good over evil before he is even conceived. Therefore a child born 700 years future to this prophecy would definitely meet the qualification . . .

---

I suppose it depends on whether or not one thinks that language can convey reasonable communication. I could, for instance, say "I will be taking my car in for a tune-up at some time tomorrow before it turns over 70,000 miles. I'll stop by and pay you the money I owe you then". Well, let's see, "my car" doesn't necessarily have to mean the car I currently own; it could mean some car I will own in the future. And "tomorrow" is not always used in the sense of the next consecutive day, is it? Maybe I meant "tomorrow" in the sense that it is used in the phrase "the world of tomorrow". And, naturally, if we are talking about a car that I will own in the future that hasn't even been manufactured yet, it certainly qualifies as "not having turned over 70,000 miles yet", doesn't it? So I guess it's going to be awhile before you get paid.The fact is, you can make "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" read like the Communist Manifesto if you really want to badly enough. But would you really take my above statement as a reasonable explanation for why I never get around to paying you?If Is. 7:16 was intended to mean that the child would not be born for another 7 centuries, there would have been absolutely no reason to connect the event with the "forsaking of the land by both her kings"; regardless of which particular two kings one might think are being referred to. This would make no more sense than me telling you that, "California will fall into the ocean in the year 2735 A.D.; but my dog will die before then."Isaiah would have had several options here. Had he actually meant to say that the child wouldn't be born until some time long in the future, he could have said "The day will come when a child will be born . ." or he could have simply not made reference to the child in the context of contemporary events at all. But he didn't do this. He described what the relative age of the child would be and then linked it to the time of a specific eventIf you are satisfied to discard the plain, normal sense of any passage in favor of an awkward and contrived interpretation, you will indeed be insulated in your belief system. The use of such methodology, however, reveals only your motives.Consequently, if you can seriously assert that, ". . .before the child shall know to refuse evil and choose good . . ." is not meant to convey the relative age of an existing child at the time of the indicated events, but is, rather, some inept and back-handed attempt by Isaiah to communicate that the child will still be non-existant some 700 odd years after the events which he specifically links to the relative age of the child, then continued debate is probably futile.As always, Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-19-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

Schraf, it's been obvious to objective folks for a looooong time as to what this prophecy is about. . . .the bunch of you go to grasp anything you can possibly think up in your determined efforts to refute the supernatural.

---

No buzsaw, no ulterior motive is required. The majority of the fundamentally religious people I talk to regard the Isaiah 7 passages as a "dual" prophecy. IOW, the Spirit tells them that there was both a contemporary historical fulfillment and a future fulfillment in the birth of Christ.They say that verses 15 & 16 cannot apply to Jesus because that would imply that there was a time when Jesus did not know how to discern good from evil.Consider the following excerpt by Tim Haile:

quote:

---

Did Jesus Have to "Learn the Difference" Between Right and Wrong?

​

(Some people) appear to have overlooked the fact that the (Isaiah 7:14) prophecy is a dual prophecy. This means it had an imminent, literal fulfillment, perceptible to Isaiah's audience, and it also had a future, spiritual fulfillment. This later aspect of the prophecy is discussed in Matthew 1:23.

​

No person on the earth today has the kind of guidance that Matthew had in providing commentary on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. He was told which part of the Isaiah 7 prophecy was Messianic. Obviously, some brethren are comfortable going beyond what Matthew said, for they assert that verse 15 of Isaiah 7 also applied to Christ. By so doing, they go beyond the doctrine of Christ and become guilty of perverting Christ's gospel by adding their opinions to it (2 John 9; Gal. 1:7-9).

​

The inspired writer Matthew only applied Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus. It is presumptuous and wrong to apply verses 15 and 16 to Jesus.

---

These people are true (and presumably "Spirit led") believers and they are not trying to "deny the supernatural". And yet they don't attempt to divorce these writings of Isaiah from their historical context. They simply assert that there is an additional underlying meaning to Isaiah 7:14 which can be applied to the birth of Jesus.Thus there are many Christians who disagree with your assessment that Isaiah chapter 7 refers only to a supernatural future event.Therefore, prejudice is not required for a contemporary historical reading of Isaiah chapter 7. I only differ with these other Christians in that I see no reason to attach a later allegorical prophecy fulfillment to the historical context.Namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

Fundamentally religious??

---

Yes. The fundamentally religious people with whom I have discussed these issues. Such as the fundamentally conservative Baptists among which I was a member for 20+ years.

quote:

---

buzsaw
I've been among Biblical fundies for 58 years from age 10 when I became a Christian, and none of those who've said anything about this prophecy nor the many who've preached on it consider it to have a dual interpretation.

---

Then perhaps you need to get out more; or maybe you just don't do alot of listening.

quote:

---

Fred G. Zaspel; Published by Word of Life Baptist Church

​

It has long been recognized that Biblical prophecy is normally fulfilled not in a single event ...

​

Older Bible teachers described this as "double" or "dual" fulfill-ment and as the "near view" and "far view" of prophecy.

---

quote:

---

Keith Hunt; Christian Biblical Church of God. "May the Eternal God guide you into all truth as you live by and study His wonderful word."

​

In some prophecies that are of dual nature(two fulfilments), the
first or last fulfilment could be the most important.
Example: Isaiah 7. Note verses 10-17. There was to be a child
born that was to be a sign for Ahaz. Before the child was old
enough to know and choose between good and evil, the King of
Assyria was to invade. Yet this prophecy had a greater meaning.
As the NT brings out.

---

quote:

---

Understanding Prophecy; How to Understand the Bible.
Berean Bible Church

​

Recognize the Dual Nature of Many Prophecies

​

A. Near and far fulfillments.
Isaiah 7:13-17 and Matthew 1:23

---

How many pages of citations would you like?You do understand, don't you buzsaw, that it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with these other Christians. The point is that there are many Christians and Christian organizations that view Isaiah 7 in its historical context and their position cannot be dismissed as simply a need to deny the supernatural.Are you seriously attempting to deny that this is so?Namaste'Amlodhi

Greetings doctrbill,

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill
I find it interesting that despite the numerous discrepancies found in the so-called synoptic gospels, many people continue to assert that none of these writers could have been wrong about anything at all.

---

It is not only inconsistent with human propensity for elaboration and error, but it is also nowhere stated that the NT writings must be inerrant.

quote:

---

doctrbill
I wonder if you have considered the scholarly conjecture that Matthew was unable to read Hebrew? Because of this, it is supposed, he got his reading of Isaiah from the Septuagint.

---

Yes, I have considered it, although I spend more time with the OT than the NT. There seems to be a great deal of external evidence that a Matthew wrote an original logia (Papias' term) in either Hebrew or possibly Aramaic. Also, although I don't read Greek, there seems to be convincing internal (or linguistic) evidence that our extant Greek Matthew is an original work as opposed to a translation. And further, although our extant Matthew is usually considered to be Jewish oriented (at least as far as geography and customs), one must wonder at his seeming failure to understand certain Jewish literary idioms such a parallelism along with his use of Septuagint quotations.It tends to make me wonder whether the original (Matthean) logia (basically a laundry list of information about Jesus) may not have been the (or one of) the additional sources used by the author of our extant Greek Matthew. When time allows, I would be interested to find out whether those areas of Matthew that are said to argue for a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original are completely separate from those areas that are said to be dependent on Mark.IOW, could a later Greek writing author have composed our extant Greek Matthew using not only Mark but also integrating an original Matthean logia which, though perhaps poorly translated, accounts for the occasional Jewish literary usages in the text?

quote:

---

doctrbill
The Greek term 'parthenos' makes no concrete comment on the sexual experience of the girl in question; leaving interpretation open to the reader. Hebrew, on the other hand, reserves a special term for what we commonly call virginity. {a lack of sexual experience}

---

My understanding is that, as far as can be known, "almah" can be understood to mean a young woman either unmarried or married up until the time of her first child. To me, it makes no difference because the young woman in question could have been (and likely was) virginal right up until the incident which caused her to conceive.

quote:

---

doctrbill
Matthew had to know that his take on it played well to a heathen audience already primed to embrace such supernatural fantasies.

---

Or perhaps Matthew was simply caught up in the practice of OT exegesis (eisegesis?) that was so prevalent in this period. When Paul preached his gospel to the Bereans, what did he and/or they base it on? Acts 17:11 ". . . and (the Bereans) searched the scriptures (OT) daily, whether those things (that Paul told them) were so."Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-04-2003][This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-04-2003]